Gen Con Takes Stand For Inclusiveness

This rather breaks all my rules, in that I'm reporting on politics, and regional politics at that. That said, Gen Con, the hobby's largest American convention, intersects with this particular example, so it's hard to ignore; and this is an RPG news blog, after all. Plus, I agree with the sentiment, even if I'm doubtful about its actual effectiveness given the current contract. Gen Con has written to the local politician in its home city of Indianapolis, USA, threatening (kind of - they're contracted to stay there for five more years whether they like it or not) to consider moving elsewhere if a local law relating to businesses being able to refuse custom to same-sex couples is passed.

With multiple recent articles in just the last week (Monte Cook Games & Thunderplains, Green Ronin's Blue Rose), the subject of inclusiveness is not one that anybody can afford to ignore. However, the vitriolic comments these topics give rise to make discussion on them difficult at best.

Here's the letter they wrote.

​

 

[Umbran]

So why on earth would you ever have had a no politics policy on your site?

Just because it is everyone's business, that does not mean that all places and times are appropriate for discussion of that business. We have a no-politics (and no-real-world-religion) rule because EN World is usually not an appropriate place for such discussions, and they generally get heated to the point of being useless to anyone.

This one case, however, is directly relevant to the overall topic of the site, so Morrus decided to include it in the news.

That does not mean that the site is okay for all other kinds of political discussion, by a long shot.

 

[pdmiller]

Mod Edit: Folks, if you want to discuss moderation, do it by The Rules - take it to e-mail or PM. Don't engage in-thread. Thanks. ~Umbran

 

[Balesir]

this also goes into the bathroom thing... if someone is in one, and I go in and that person's presence makes me uncomfortable, then there is a problem... I bet that person is in here because THEY would feel uncomfortable in the other one... so how do we solve this???

Well, we could start by getting educated enough to realise that, in verious places and times, topless women, naked men and women, same-sex liaisons, and public displays of emotion (including violence) have been considered normal, everyday occurrences. Society at large will have its fashions and pecadilloes, of course, but there is no need for us to get too excited about the current "taboo of the era". Like all before it, this, too, shall pass.

 

[Jester David]

I'm fine with refusing to serve an individual, especially based on their actions.
I'm less fine with refusing to serve a group independant of actions.

I'm happy to see GenCon take a stand for inclusion.

 

[pdmiller]

double post...

 

[pdmiller]

Business owners are not a protected class of people.

You really don't see a problem with that statement do you?

Protecting "classes" only moves the discrimination from one group to another. And with these rules, there is never a mechanism to turn it off when equilibrium is achieved.

 

[redrick]

what about a topless woman? or one in a bikini?

When I was in my early 20's I and my then girlfriend and her best friend went to the beach and then to the bar and grill... both ladies where in bikini tops and cut off shorts (I on the other hand stay clothed as a public service) when the woman at the seating area told them they can't come in with bikini tops, the best friend removed hers... much to everyone's surprise. The hostess threatened to call the police, and the now topless woman informed her that by law in NY anywhere a man can be topless so can a woman... and at the bar were a few beach goers with just shorts and hats on...

We were escorted out by a very large man... at the time I was too busy being shocked and stareing... but today I would be very upset if I had my neice and nephew there and that happened....



this also goes into the bathroom thing... if someone is in one, and I go in and that person's presence makes me uncomfortable, then there is a problem... I bet that person is in here because THEY would feel uncomfortable in the other one... so how do we solve this???

[MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION], this has been covered upthread, but enforcing a dress code, so long as that dress code is not otherwise discriminatory (eg allowing hats but not yamakas, or head scarves but not muslim head scarves) is legal. A restaurant has every right to tell a woman she needs to wear more than a bikini, so long as that restaurant is enforcing a no-shirts, no shoes sort of policy. Now, if there are shirtless dudes sitting at the bar, but a woman in a bikini is barred entry because her top is "too revealing", I would say that that restaurant is discriminating and deserves some pushback.

As for women being allowed to be topless in New York, yes, that is the law. It is, in fact, tied to a ruling on our anti-discrimination laws. In public places where men are allowed to go topless, women are allowed to go topless as well. It's not something we see every day. I'd say, on a day to day basis, we here in New York see things that are far more discomforting and shocking. The easy solution is just to enforce the standard, "no shirt, no service" rule to both men and women.

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

Slight tangent, on the topic of public restrooms - from personal experience they are an absolute nightmare. Many a transgender person, myself included, has simply held it (often to the point of physical discomfort, sometimes to the point of risk of hurting oneself) until they got home. We risk being verbally and physically attacked and even arrested simply because we need to go pee.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You really don't see a problem with that statement do you?

Protecting "classes" only moves the discrimination from one group to another. And with these rules, there is never a mechanism to turn it off when equilibrium is achieved.

Nice doublethink.

"Protected classes" exist in law to correct for past, present and future discrimination experienced by persons society has- at some point or another, based on relatively immutable characteristics. They level the playing field, they do not shift discrimination to others.

Business owners are not a protected class because there has not been a historical prejudice against business owners, and the fact of being a business owner is not relatively immutable. You can always sell your business and be free of the restrictions of being a business owner. I cannot sell my blackness and be free of the restrictions placed on me by my race.

Furthermore, there IS a remedy. Two, in fact.

The first: if you can prove in court that you don't need to be covered by special rules, the special rules can be lifted by the courts. This JUST happened in several southern states in regards to federal monitoring of their elections because of established patterns of racial discrimination. Now, I personally think the courts were wrong, and that shenanigans are still going on, but the fact remains: federal scrutiny was removed.

The second is far cheaper & easier: don't discriminate. If you don't, your chances of running afoul of the law diminish to near zero.

 

[Sunsword]

I have a propostion: What if we called Gen Con's customer base to action?
What if we send the Governor Pence a Magic Card, say a Circle of Protection Artifact to his office in Indiana? Its in stock at most online vendors at 25¢ and the vendor can easily send it the Governor's office for their customer.
Here is the address: Michael R. Pence
Office of the Governor is located at 200 W. Washington St., Rm. 206, Indianapolis, IN 46204